Anti-balistic defenses

Since shields seem to be out of the question for release (modding is not really a solution imo) how about some form of laser based defense system that shoots down projectiles both missiles and certain shells (artillery shells and bombs?).

It could have a short range and and a limited firing rate, it could stack but also overkill.

If anyone remembers C&C generals the laser Humvee the US had, basically a turret version of that.

i'am sure what you after or close too, will be added soon...

Those things are interesting but they also concern me.

Usually, rain from above (long range balistics or air strikes) is the only thing that we can employ to break down an opponent when the land path became too well defended or is inherently too hard to cross. If people can shield up (or in any way protect themselves from the "rain from above") that is bound to easily create those games that end up in a stand-off for ages, until someone many 10s of minutes later manages to break the tie.

On the other hand, it might be possible that it will allow to create safe zones of territory, which will make the owners more invested in, which will allow for a greater feeling of territory ownership. But I still fear the long boring no-action stale-mates...

That seems fun to me. Huge fortified bases - clear zones of influencs - I mean.

Ho, they are - they definitely are .. until you get bored when they are too unbreakeable and you spend an extra 20~60 minutes of game time trying to break the stalemate. That's my only concern. Games that sometimes last 10 minutes, sometimes 2h .. meh.

Guys, read the Confirmed Features list 2.0. I'm pretty sure Uber has stated that they are opposed to shields or any shield-like objects.

Also, use the search "for fun and profit" as a more condescending person would say, as we had a very long discussion about this a while ago, and it does nothing but spawn argument.

(right here: [WILL NOT BE PRESENT] Shields: #1 #2 #3)

And I will, as usual, leave this here for unrealistic suggestions: We can mod it, we have the technology.

Modding isn't a solution to anything. Maybe I want to play on a ranked ladder? I swear people will doom this game to failure by insisting "everything is ok modders will fix it". They really won't. Unless you want this game to become FAF v2, I want to play with more then 200 hundred people, and I want it to be successful enough for continued time investment by Uber.

Well, this is something I personally don't want "fixed", and something a large amount of TA fans (read: about 1/2 of the backers) don't want "fixed". In my humble opinion, shields positively ruin fluid, competitive gameplay by encouraging PD creep and turtling. Not only that, they *allow* for PD creep and turtling in the first place.

And mind you, there will be community run ladders, and inevitably, some SupCom fan will install a shield mod on his server, and run a ladder that includes shield units.

The first ever ladder in PA IS community run, and we don't even have access to our own servers yet. So you don't really have to worry about getting in your own personalized ladder.

Yeah lets fragment then game into a million different pieces that way there is a tiny pool of players. I think you're overestimating how much effort people put into playing games. For most people installing mods = not worth playing.

Unless the mod is just really really good. Example: DayZ

If you let the other guy build engines on a large asteroid you have failed to do your job as his opponent and should loose. In the end defense is a waste of time. Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.

Dayz is another game entirely at this stage, not just a mod. Not even remotely similar comparison.

You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended

You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked

Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected

Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive

Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength


All of these things are relevant to static defense. All of them are from Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Actually they all point out why static defenses are pointless.

That is precisely what I meant in posting that.

Oh. Silly me then.

Did sun tzu ever say anything with automated laser turrets in mind? Can't see it being too relevant then.

My defense is a combination of turrets and arty at choke points with a large mobile army. One of the best tactics to defeat an enemy is to send a small attack squad to one point of their base. They almost always send ALL their units to counter and just as that happens the larger portion marches in somewhere else laying waste. Defense can be well utilized, but it only can defend so much.

But I agree with OP and Uber knows this too. There will eventually be an anit-missile defense to counter nukes and catapults. Don't worry. This is alpha. Most of the games features are non-existent or incomplete.

I hope uber will make it possible (units, structures, etc.) to be defensive. I like building up a huge array of defenses like turrets, (and in supcom, shields) and then build up units and attack. Just hoping that would be possible, since having someone use long rang artillery on your base can be really annoying without some sort of counter. I was thinking something like a laser cannon with maybe 3 lasers that zap big projectiles like long range artillery shells. But cant zap something like a nuke or anything orbital.


Thoughts?

I generally attack first then build up defences because I expect my first attack to fail but to weaken the opponent whilst my armies rebuild so if I'm then wrong about their strength I've got some defences and I've got an idea of what they've got.